Midterm Exam Skeleton (for review purposes only)
POS194: COMPARATIVE POLITICS
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
JANUARY 30, 2012
PART ONE (40 points): For items 1 to 10:
A. Statements I and II satisfy the given question
B. Statements I and IV satisfy the given question
C. Statements II and III satisfy the given question
D. Statements II and IV satisfy the given question
E. Statements I and III satisfy the given question
F. Statements I and IV satisfy the given question
G. All statements satisfies the given question
H. All statements, except one, satisfies the given question
I. Only one among the statements satisfies the given question
J. None of the statements satisfies the given question
1. In comparing ways of comparing political phenomena, the student of comparative politics must pay attention to the relationship between the vested political interests supported or contested by the particular way of comparison. One must always remember that theory does not operate in a vacuum and that one’s way of seeing/viewing political realities can shape or reshape the very political realities one is studying. Which of the following does/do NOT provide evidence for the preceding argument?
(sample choices only. The choices for the other questions will be given during the exam itself)
I. The research agenda of the political modernization school focusing on “grand systems” and actors as well as forces outside the formal apparatus of the State enabled a more objective, scientific and theory-building approach to the study of political phenomena. This has led to the sharpening of the comparativist’s tools for comparison such as the introduction of statistical research and large-N cross-national data sets that contained institutional and macro variables. The “laboratory” of this more scientific political science included the newly independent states of Asia and Latin America where exciting puzzles on the relationship between cultural values, traditions, levels of development and regime choice occupied the minds of comparativists influenced by the behavioral revolution.
II. In critically studying the State as a unit of analysis, the comparativist must pay attention three things: first, the possibility that one’s research reproduces on the epistemological and methodological levels the “high modernist” ideology characteristic of modern state systems and as such fail to see the complex picture of the political reality one is tasked to comprehend; second, the possibility that one’s focus on the State may conceal what one might otherwise have seen had one not assumed the very reality of the State – power and domination; and third, the possibility that one’s critique of the State may be congruent with the very terms and epistemology of the political vocabulary upon which the said State is grounded and consequently able to reproduce societal relations (for instance, class).
III. Early post-World War II comparative politics served to consolidate and legitimize United States foreign policy in relation to the developing world. Comparativists in their comparisons of developed and developing societies and the appeal to universal pattern variables tended to share the normative commitment of US foreign policy against the re-emergence of totalitarianism via the endorsement of development blueprints and trajectories that were characterized by high integration of state and society, acknowledgement of indigenous and corporatist models of political representation and mobilization, and the critique of ethnocentricism that was characteristic of pre-war comparative politics. Post-1967 comparative politics, in contrast, was characterized by a non-unified research agenda as a consequence of divergent positions and values comparativists held in responding to the impact of US foreign policy in the developing world (for instance, US intervention in the Vietnam War), the assassination of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement.
IV. The seeming triumph, continued sharpening and sophistication of the new institutionalist paradigm(s) in comparative politics today reflects what Peter Evans describes as the relationship between patrons and clients of knowledge production. The complex realities of the post-Cold War era and a more globalized political society continue to drive the agenda of political science research away from systemic debates towards microfoundational and cultural research that can help policymakers and civil society actors understand, contextualize and predict political outcomes under conditions of extreme uncertainty. Thus, while there is still a need to clarify and make more distinct the differences between common research themes and areas such as democratization based on geopolitical factors, historical variations, much of these research are occurring at a time when almost all countries around the world have made strides towards adopting more open governments and markets and are therefore less inflected with ideological and systems debates than in the past. One can then see how the preponderance of quantitative and more complex qualitative research today based on economic theories applied to public policy effectively conceals as hidden assumption: the normative desirability of liberal democratic regimes.
2. In “Is Comparative Politics Dead?” Howard Wiarda (1998) identifies eight areas of research that comparativists can pursue even in a context of growing boredom and non-excitement given the global consensus towards state downsizing, liberal (formally, at the very least) forms of democracy and open market societies. Which of the following pairing between substantive focus and qualitative methodological studies does/do NOT reflect a type of comparative research that fits Wiarda’s priority areas in the context of what Gerardo Munck (1995) characterized as a “Second Behavioral Revolution” in political science?
3. A key methodological debate in comparative politics involves the question of population size. On one hand, small-N comparisons are described as capable of generating more in-depth conclusions while on the other hand, large-N comparisons are viewed as engendering wider generalizability of research conclusions and avoiding selection bias that troubles small-N and case-intensive comparative research. Which of the following research questions and corresponding small-N qualitative approach fit/s into James Mahoney’s (2007) suggested strategies for avoiding the problems often associated with qualitative research?
4. Which of the following works (and their respective onclusions) on the autonomy of the State challenge the role of dominant modes of production, class differences and class struggle as causal variables utilized by Marxist comparativists (as identified by Jessop 1990) in accounting for the character of the postcolonial State?
5. Which of the following comparative works on the welfare state do/does NOT represent an approach that recognizes the “governmentalization” of the state as suggested by Michel Foucault (1984)?
6. Which of the following theory-historical data pairing do/does NOT show the inadequacy of the classical Marxist and neo-Marxist theories of the State in explaining the specificity of the bourgeois state?
7. Using the trade-offs approach to concept formation suggested by John Gerring (1999), what is the proper way of evaluating the way comparativists across different traditions or paradigms in political science have defined the concept of the State?
8. Which of the following highlight the problems associated with rational choice studies if one follows Theda Skocpol’s (1994) preference for/defense of a macro-historical and causal research?
9. Which of the following adequately capture/s the difference between the patron-client approach to the study of Southeast Asian politics (Scott 1972) and the bossist framework endorsed by John Sidel (1997)?
10. According to Charles Tilly, “the later the state making process is, the less likely internal processes are to provide an adequate explanation to the formation, survival or growth of a state” (1975; cited in Jackson and Rosberg 1982). Which of the following captures the value of dependency theories in accounting for the behavior of militaries in post-colonial societies?
PART TWO (25 points): For items 11-15: The following are very broadly formulated comparative research questions that may be pursued from different modes of comparison. Below them are nine possible ways of approaching the research question. Each research strategy embodies a particular paradigm in comparative politics:
A. Political Development/Modernization/Structural Functionalism
B. Classical Marxism
C. Neo-Marxism
D. Post-Colonial Marxism and Dependency
E. Neo-Statism
F. Rational Choice Theory
G. Historical Institutionalism
H. Sociological Institutionalism
I. Interpretivism/Discourse Analysis
J. All of the above are correctly formulated.
For each item, evaluate all the suggested research strategies and select which research strategy is WRONGLY formulated according to the following: 1) conceptual unit of analysis; b) testable causal variables and relationships/propositions; c) methodological approach; d) expected conclusion/s; and e) research limitations.
1. Why are some States more effective in implementing land reform strategies than other States?
2. Why are some military organizations more prone to intervene in civilian affairs than others?
3. What is the relationship between level of economic development and democratization?
4. Why do people revolt?
5. Why are some political parties more open to coalition building than others?
PART THREE (15 points): Enumeration/Conceptual Definition
PART FOUR (20 points): Short essay: In no more than 10 lines, identify a contemporary/recent event/phenomenon in a Southeast Asian country that the literature presented by the group report may not be able to adequately explain. Make sure to highlight the conclusions of the literature on Southeast Asian politics and their conceptual and theoretical assumptions that may limit their ability to explain your given political phenomenon.
Good luck! 
